We are in the midst of a shift in political thinking about constitutional amendments.

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is among many progressive thinkers now promoting constitutional change — in her case, to allow Congress to restrict corporate spending on political campaigns. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in a new book, calls for no fewer than six constitutional amendments, involving not only campaign finance but also gun control, capital punishment, political gerrymandering, sovereign immunity and federalism.

Yet, for decades, constitutional change was something championed more by conservatives than by liberals. What’s going on?

The recent proposals can be illuminated by the founding generation’s debates about constitutional change, which sharply divided James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Where Madison favored constitutional stability and distrusted popular passions, Jefferson welcomed fundamental rethinking by We the People.

Writing in 1788, Madison acknowledged that “the people are the only legitimate fountain of power.” But he thought that constitutional change should be reserved for “great and extraordinary occasions.” He insisted that “frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.”

The far-seeing Madison believed that if we want people to venerate our constitutional order, we will need an old rather than a new constitution, and we should avoid a lot of amendments.

He was even more concerned about populism — the “danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions.” Madison feared that amendments would disturb, rather than maintain, “the constitutional equilibrium of the government.”

Jefferson’s view could not have been more different. In a 1789 letter to Madison, he argued that “no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.” Every constitution, he held, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”

In 1816, specifically rejecting Madison’s hope for veneration, Jefferson lamented, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.” He feared a situation in which people would “ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.”

Trying to humanize the founding generation, he said, “It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present.”

Since the 1950s, progressives have often made Madisonian arguments in defense of their favorite Supreme Court decisions (including Roe v. Wade). Frequently opposing constitutional change, they have emphasized the risks of public passions, endangering what they see as fundamental rights, and they have drawn directly on Madison’s argument for constitutional stability.

Meanwhile, conservatives have sounded more Jeffersonian. Stressing the importance of democratic self-rule, many have supported amendments to allow state governments to forbid abortion and flag burning, to bar courts from making states recognize same-sex marriage, and to allow school prayer.

To be sure, neither side has been consistent. With respect to the Equal Rights Amendment, which would guarantee equality on the basis of sex, progressives have sounded like Jefferson and conservatives like Madison.

Who’s right, Madison or Jefferson? In the abstract, there are strong arguments to be made for Jefferson. If a nation’s constitution has significant flaws, and if circumstances change, severe restrictions on amendments look less sensible. For populists, who welcome rather than fear “public passions,” Jefferson points in the right directions.

Of course, Madison did not want to freeze the Constitution for all time. Article V creates a process for amending it, and although that process is hard to navigate, 27 amendments have been ratified (including the 10 provisions of the Bill of Rights).

In the scope of U.S. history, however, Madison has proved the wiser. In part because of its original design, and in part because of judicial interpretations, the Constitution combines stability with flexibility. Most of the time, We the People have been able to respond to changing values and circumstances without changing the founding document.

In seeking to reserve amendments to “great and extraordinary occasions,” Madison got it right.

Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is a professor at Harvard Law School and a Bloomberg View columnist.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in Opinion

THE SHOWBOAT’S FUTURE Wanted: a management partner who will “creatively explore new programming and service opportunities” at a unique St. Paul riverfront facility. It’s the former Minnesota Centennial Showboat at Harriet Island Regional Park, and the city’s Parks and Recreation Department says its call for ideas is the “opportunity to re-imagine what this riverboat could be.” The department is seeking...

TEACHING USEFUL SKILLS Schools, are you listening? Joe Soucheray’s Dec. 1 column was brilliant. (“What’s next? Fancy signs in lunchrooms telling kids to chew?) Taking students with disciplinary problems and giving them a useful way to be productive, even teaching them a skill they could possibly use for future employment, is exactly what our schools should be doing. Snow and...

TRUMP’S NEXT CHAPTER Atticus Finch, the beloved father and lawyer in Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” is one of literature’s most admirable characters, defending a black man accused of raping a white woman in a bigoted Southern town. But what has come to be considered Lee’s original manuscript, “Go Set a Watchman,” which was published in 2015 after lying...

Though the presidential campaign did not focus much attention on it, the federal debt confronting President-elect Donald Trump is greater, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time since Harry Truman’s World War II term of office. Trump more than Democrat Hillary Clinton did give lip service but few specifics about the size of the growing national debt...

The best way to solve the conundrum of 11 million undocumented immigrants who are living, working and contributing to America right now has a name: “245(i).” Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a law that enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress in its 13 years of existence. It is still on the books, though it expired in 2001...

Many people read Christmas stories at this time of year. I read reports and studies to help me get into the holiday spirit. One caught my eye this week. There have been a lot of macro theories and studies over the years, half-baked as well as plausible, if not evidence-based, about what significantly affects the overall crime rate, both good...